[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62131c40-e69b-0664-2b2a-177a031a6f1f@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:40:39 +0800
From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: thomas.lendacky@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: amd: xgbe: fix possible sleep-in-atomic-context bugs
in xgbe_powerdown()
On 2019/12/19 5:26, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 22:01:02 +0800
>
>> @@ -1257,17 +1257,18 @@ int xgbe_powerdown(struct net_device *netdev, unsigned int caller)
>> netif_tx_stop_all_queues(netdev);
>>
>> xgbe_stop_timers(pdata);
>> - flush_workqueue(pdata->dev_workqueue);
>>
>> hw_if->powerdown_tx(pdata);
>> hw_if->powerdown_rx(pdata);
>>
>> - xgbe_napi_disable(pdata, 0);
>> -
>> pdata->power_down = 1;
>>
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pdata->lock, flags);
>>
>> + flush_workqueue(pdata->dev_workqueue);
>> +
>> + xgbe_napi_disable(pdata, 0);
>> +
> Nope, this doesn't work at all.
>
> You can't leave NAPI enabled, and thus packet processing, after the TX
> and RX units of the chip have been powered down.
Looking at the code, only xgbe_powerup() and xgbe_powerdown() use the
spinlock "pdata->lock".
How about change the spinlock to a mutex?
Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists